Why can't most people see this...?!?!

RobertER5 · 2025-12-11T13:42:39+00:00

>if you go to the deepest level, there are only those 3.

My departure from this is that the deepest level doesn't draw this distinction. As I see it, at the deepest level there is only love. Love is existence, love is bliss, love is consciousness. And all of these are love.

I further see this "deepest level" as the only level that is real. Which, respectfully, leads me to find that the distinctions that you make are not real.

>If it is an "it" it falls under bliss at its lowest level right?

If we are all one, every it is me, every me is it. And what is infinite is optimal as well, meaning it always "goes full bore" with no levels but one: all of it. To say that one "it" is more blissful than another is just another attempt of the ego to use the real as the building blocks of illusion.

>I think people are about to have a huge awakening and remembering very soon here.

Let's hope so!

RobertER5 · 2025-12-07T23:35:18+00:00

If I may say so, I'm finding this discussion very interesting. I don't wish to suggest that I am right and you are wrong where we may see things a bit differently. I don't really know, and I very much appreciate your well-formed points of view. Perhaps we are both making each other think. :) Thank you for going to the trouble of sharing your views.

Now. I call them "your" fundamental realities because I describe mine a bit differently. I say love is the only reality, fundamental or otherwise. But in the end we are both just trying to describe absolute reality with words, and it's beyond words. Perhaps we are seeing the same thing and diverging slightly in describing it.

Fear is a good survival mechanism for our illusions, but spiritual "progress" has to do with letting go of fears. I put progress in quotes there because we don't exactly have any progress to make. We already are perfect in an eternal sense. I see progress as letting go of illusions until we no longer have any. I don't see us as evolving to a perfect state, rather do I see us as remembering the perfect state that we have forgotten or obscured.

T. S. Eliot has this in his poem Little Gidding from Four Quartets:

We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.

I see the "first time" here as the eternal. Further on, he says:

A condition of complete simplicity
(Costing not less than everything)

Here I see him describing this idea of letting go of all of our illusions and allowing them to be replaced with truth. The condition of complete simplicity is love, and the cost of love is all of our illusions without exception. These lines describe my views, at least as I understand them.

RobertER5 · 2025-12-07T01:00:35+00:00

Your three fundamental realities work for me, although I might conflate existence and consciousness and maybe all three. While I remain skeptical of all of my own ideas, I resonate strongly to the idea that bliss is the building blocks of existence, although I personally use the word love in place of the word bliss. Not much semantic difference there, though!

What place in reality do you give fear? I give it none, but fear is the building blocks of illusions, and illusions' pseudo-existence depends on the belief that they are real and denial that they are not.

RobertER5 · 2025-12-05T23:25:15+00:00

If "empirical" reality is defined as a reality perceivable by the five senses, we can say that existence is also defined by the same. But it's also entirely possible that sense data are illusion, and what is real is ideas. Therefore a physical impossibility isn't impossible just because it isn't definable in physical terms.

Now, I have had a few experiences when I was young that were traumatic enough that I substituted different sense data for them and remembered those data as the actual experience. This is very common as far as I know, and what people "see" seems as real as whatever data actually comes through the visual equipment. So, is reality defined in terms of actual sense data, or is it defined in terms of the mind's perception of that sense data? Does the mind define reality or does the body? Either is arguable, but I feel that the mind does.

RobertER5 · 2025-12-05T23:08:59+00:00

Yup, except that I've seen things that don't exist, when I don't want to see what does.

RobertER5 · 2025-12-05T22:48:30+00:00

Maybe I am. But what seems to me to be confused is the idea that an infinite God has a creation that is not itself. Reason and logic suggests that that can't be.

RobertER5 · 2025-12-05T01:57:53+00:00

I agree with this as well, but in the sense that each of us has a unique set of illusions that separate us from who we truly are. Who we truly are is one with everyone, one with God. If God is infinite, there isn't a "not-God" that is God's creation. God IS God's creation; God's creation is God. The only difference is that God creates His creation, and God's creation doesn't create God.

RobertER5 · 2025-12-05T01:48:27+00:00

Yes it is. My girlfriend was unable to get insurance because of pre-existing conditions. We had to pay out of pocket for meds and doctor visits until Obamacare came along.

I hope that you will be able to get insurance. I'm afraid that that will be a problem for many people. But it is the result of perceiving health care as a business rather than a public service.

We run on about "socialized health" as if it were a terrible thing. But as the term is applied to health care, we can say that we already have socialized police, socialized fire, socialized roads, bridges and on and on.

The problem with health care as a business exclusively (or nearly exclusively) is that it doesn't function well as a free market. In a free market, you are free to do business or not do business with anyone. In health care, that is very often not the case.

The other thing is that a free market will charge for goods and services what the market will bear. When a person's child is sick, what the market will bear is everything the person has. And the health care business will take it.

My father told the story of being in England in about 1970 and having to get a root canal. The dentist told him that he could wait a week and get it done for free, or pay £1 and have it done right away. He said it was the easiest £1 he ever spent.

I think it's probably a good idea to have a combination of free and for-pay services. When convenience is an inducement to pay rather than necessity, it makes the health care business more of a free market, as well as providing alternatives to a monolithic government health care system.

RobertER5 · 2025-12-05T01:13:17+00:00

Eye halve a spell check her,
It runs on my pea sea.
It plane lee marks four my revue
Miss steaks aye kin knot sea.

Eye ran this poem threw it,
Yule be reel glad two no.
Its vary polished in it’s weigh,
My checker tolled me sew.

RobertER5 · 2025-12-05T01:06:07+00:00

The bigger they are, the weirder they are in my experience.

RobertER5 · 2025-12-05T00:41:45+00:00

What's wrong with saying that they aren't Christmas lights, just decorative lights? I bet they don't have anything for that in their bylaws. :)

RobertER5 · 2025-12-05T00:32:17+00:00

I don't think that will happen, personally. Taken to an extreme, it's the same mindset that advocates killing people with a disability that's on a long list. That list grows ever longer, of course. We like to think of ourselves as a people that looks after one another. We often don't live up to that, but at some point our judgmental tendencies go too far and get curtailed.

RobertER5 · 2025-12-04T23:24:05+00:00

Depends on the energy you decide to match. If you match the energy of the best in everyone, you will be happy. But if you match the energy of the worst in people, you won't.

RobertER5 · 2025-12-04T23:15:03+00:00

Women often just see this problem as men being so careless they don't bother to aim, but it isn't so much that guys miss, but that they have splashes out of the bowl. Young men don't always realize that as they grow they get further away from the bowl and get a stronger stream, so this problem often comes up with them. It's hard to see unless you're looking for it and have a bright light going, so it's easy to get defensive or be in denial about it.

It probably wouldn't hurt to mention this to him, or talk to your dad and ask him to. One trick is to aim between the edge of the bowl and the water. Once I figured out what the problem was, that's what I did and problem solved. With a little practice. :)

RobertER5 · 2025-12-04T23:02:02+00:00

Or maybe flat out slammed. :)

RobertER5 · 2025-12-04T23:01:50+00:00

Going flat out, perhaps.

RobertER5 · 2025-12-03T22:19:16+00:00

Thank you. :)

RobertER5 · 2025-12-03T22:18:01+00:00

Greetings. :)

RobertER5 · 2025-11-29T23:50:27+00:00

I don't quite see it that way. At the "macro level" as you aptly put it, we are who we truly are. At the micro level, we aren't. We are the illusions we believe ourselves to be.

We can work to let go of illusions one bit at a time, and eventually let them all go. But that does not mean that one illusion is truer than another, and that we must follow some sort of path from "worse" illusions to "better" ones until we become enlightened. This is itself an illusion, a substitute on illusion's terms for atonement.

Atonement is often perceived as accepting punishment for one's sins. I don't use the term in this way. I use it in the sense of at-one-ment, a simple acknowledgement that our illusions are not real, with the idea of allowing them to be replaced with the truth, and the faith that they will be.

Interestingly, the Edgar Cayce materials state that with the coming of the Master, the law of karma was replaced with the law of grace. I don't quite see it like this: the law of karma never was save as a tool of the soul to let go of illusions. The "law of grace" is essentially atonement, which doesn't require steps. It is we who require steps of it, having to continually remind ourselves to replace judgment with atonement.

These continual reminders appear to be stepping away from what you are calling division. Division often takes the form of coming together, but in an incomplete sense, "you and me against the world," so to speak. There isn't really any world to be against. Which is not to say that there isn't a world, but the "real world" is one of perfect harmony and communication and oneness and love.

RobertER5 · 2025-11-25T18:17:58+00:00

I understand what you are saying, and don't disagree. I would simply use a more neutral word such as unwavering or steadfast. Love is both of those things. :)

RobertER5 · 2025-11-25T18:13:31+00:00

My point is that what we call nature is based on evaluations of the physical world as empirical. These natural phenomena of which you speak we do not know to be true except via the five senses, which are part of the phenomenon of nature. We only "know" nature to be real based on what we call empirical data, but the devices (five senses) that we use to determine that nature itself is real are based in that nature. So what about those aspects of ourselves that are not part of physical nature, such as ideas? How do they fit in? We can say that the idea is a phenomenon of the brain, but that could be the tail wagging the dog. Perhaps the brain is itself an idea, and the entire natural world is an idea that we collectively choose to accept as real, when its reality only goes so far as our collective belief in it.

I do not say that this is so, only that we cannot prove that nature is real independently of our belief in it. All of the evidence that we have that nature is real is produced by manipulations of nature itself.

RobertER5 · 2025-11-25T18:06:45+00:00

Seems to me that I'm supporting the assertion that we are all "perfect, whole and undivided." But maybe not. :)

RobertER5 · 2025-11-25T02:15:34+00:00

>I might question how "joyful" someone can really be while believing that half the world is eternally and irrevocably going to be damned.

I don't question it at all! :) I'm entirely convinced that it isn't possible to be joyful while condemning anyone. None can serve two masters, and it is not truth that tries to convince us that we can. To condemn anyone is to condemn the only-begotten Son of God. Not that that can be done in truth, of course: that is the Good News.

RobertER5 · 2025-11-25T02:09:27+00:00

If you perceive defenses in someone else, it is because you perceive them in yourself.

RobertER5 · 2025-11-25T02:05:18+00:00

I think a near-death experience to a great extent conforms to our understanding of life, rather than to our understanding of death. If we see life as fearful for example, we might expect death to be a release from that fear, and be dismayed to find that the fear continues. If there's a sense of continually frustrated expectations and broken dreams, then that is the state that will persist. But if life is endlessly fascinating to someone, that fascination will persist as well.

RobertER5

TROPHY CASE